Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

what is Statutory Interpretation?

Answer 1

is what judges do when they are trying to understand (interpret) the wording of an Act of Parliament (statute) needed for a case they are hearing.

Question 2

why do we need Statutory Interpretation?
4 reasons

Answer 2

Acts of Parliament may not be clear
Words change their meaning over time
Some wording can be ambiguous
Acts of Parliament cannot cover all eventualities

Question 3

what are the rules of Statutory Interpretation

Answer 3

literal rule
golden rule
mischief rule
purposive approach

Question 4

what is the literal rule

Answer 4

This is when the judge applies the law in its literal and ordinary meaning

Question 5

features of the literal rule- 2 points

Answer 5

1)Judges will often use an Oxford English Dictionary from the time the law was made to work out the meaning of specific words used in an Act
2)This rule respects Parliamentary Supremacy and the Separation of Powers as it does not allow judges to make laws

Question 6

example of the literal rule being used- case and the outcome
dpp v cheeseman

Answer 6

DPP v Cheeseman 1990
D caught masturbating in public toilets by police who were waiting to catch him at it
Law said it was illegal to expose yourself to ‘passengers in the street’
NOT GUILTY as the police officers were stood still, so weren’t passengers

Question 7

what is the golden rule

Answer 7

This is when the judge follows the literal rule, until the decision would be absurd, in which case they make the common sense decision.

Question 8

what are the two different approaches for the golden rule

Answer 8

narrow approach
wide approach

Question 9

what is the narrow approach

Answer 9

Where a word or phrase is capable of more than one meaning, the court can choose between those possible meanings.

If there is only one meaning, then that meaning must be taken

Question 10

what is the wide approach

Answer 10

Where a word or phrase has one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd situation that the court feels should not be allowed, then the court is allowed to modify the words of the statute to avoid this problem

Question 11

a case example of the narrow approach
r v allen

Answer 11

R v Allen 1872
D married two women
Bigamy Law said it is illegal to marry more than one person
However this was impossible as a second marriage would never be a valid marriage
GUILTY as ‘marry’ interpreted to mean ‘go through marriage ceremony’

Question 12

case example of the wide approach
Re Sigsworth

Answer 12

Re Sigsworth 1935
Man killed his mother but still stood to inherit her fortune
There was nothing in the law which forbid this
He was NOT ALLOWED to inherit as the court felt to allow it would be ‘repugnant’

Question 13

what is the mischief rule

Answer 13

This is when the judge has more flexibility and is able to look for the ‘mischief’ or problem with society that the law was trying to deal with, and then makes the decision that addresses that problem.

Question 14

example case with the mischief effect
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981

Answer 14

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
The Abortion Act made it legal for doctors to carry out abortions
Claim made for nurses to be able to do these as well
ALLOWED as the purpose of the Act was to make abortions safe and avoid ‘backstreet abortions’ – nurses were qualified

Question 15

what is the purposive approach

Answer 15

This is basically an updated version of the Mischief Rule, but it does not require a problem to exist with the previous law. It simply asks, what was the purpose for the law?

Question 16

a case example for the purposive approach
R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990

Answer 16

R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990
Act allowed people who had been adopted to obtain their birth certificate when over 18
D applied for birth certificate, but was in prison for murder, and had killed another inmate as he hallucinated that the inmate was his birth mother
NOT ALLOWED access to his birth certificate as the purpose of the Act was to reunite adopted children and birth parents –not to put birth parents lives at risk

Question 17

literal rule advantages (4)

Answer 17

1)Follows exact words of Parliament
2) certainty
3)Restricts judges powers
4)Prompts Parliament to fix issues

Question 18

follows exact words of parliament explanation and example

Answer 18

Parliament remains supreme (most important) and also it is democratic as they are elected and judges are not. This respects supremacy of Parliament and separation of powers.
DPP V Cheeseman

Question 19

certainty explination
case example r v harris 1836

Answer 19

As the law is being applied exactly as it is written, this makes it easier to know what the law is and for lawyers to advise clients, as well as for the public to follow the law. R v Harris 1836
D bit victim’s nose
Law said it is illegal to ‘stab, cut or wound’
NOT GUILTY as biting was not explicitly included in the law

Question 20

restricts judges power- case example LNER v Berriman 1946

Answer 20

The other rules give unelected and unrepresentative judges too much power. the Literal Rule restricts them so they can only follow Parliament and nothing more.
LNER v Berriman 1946
Man killed whilst oiling points on train tracks
Compensation only allowed for ‘relaying or repairing’ line
NOT ALLOWED as not classed as repairs

Question 21

Prompts Parliament to fix issues
case explination and example

Answer 21

If Parliament has messed up in writing the law, it is up to them to change it, not up to judges to guess what Parliament would do. The absurd decision should then prompt Parliament to change the law
e.g r v harris

Question 22

Literal Rule - Disadvantages (4)

Answer 22

1)Assumed every Act is perfectly drafted
2)Words can have more than one meaning
3)Leads to unfair and absurd results
4) too rigid

Question 23

Assumed every Act is perfectly drafted explination and example-Whiteley v Chappell 1868

Answer 23

it is not always possible to word an Act so that it covers every situation that Parliament intended. Acts are written by draftsmen and there is always the chance of human error as well as unforeseen consequences.
Whiteley v Chappell 1868
D impersonated a dead man to vote
Law said it is illegal to impersonate someone entitled to vote
NOT GUILTY as dead people can’t vote

Question 24

Leads to unfair and absurd results
explination and example- LNER v Berriman

Answer 24

Because judges refuse to move away from the exact wording of an Act and believe Parliament need to go away and change the law, it can lead to a lack of justice in individual cases. Arguably Parliament would never have intended these.
LNER v Berriman

Question 25

too rigid explination and example-

Answer 25

Means the law is not able to adapt and change over time – e.g. with medical/technological advancements. This means the law remains static and is never modernised unless Parliament act.
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS would have been decided differently under literal rule

Question 26

golden rule advantages

Answer 26

1)Respects the exact wording used by Parliament
2)Chooses the most sensible outcome
3)Closes loopholes in the law
4)Saves time for Parliament

Question 27

Respects the exact wording used by Parliament explination and example case

Answer 27

It follows the words of Parliament but provides an escape route where there is a harsh or absurd result. This is arguably what Parliament would have truly intended anyway and prevents them having to go back and spend time changing the law.
e.g r v allen

Question 28

Chooses the most sensible outcome
explination and example case

Answer 28

This again avoids the problems of the literal rule by providing sensible decisions where a repugnant situation would appear.
Re Sigsworth

Question 29

Closes loopholes in the law
explination

Answer 29

If a defendant is attempting to get away with an offence by relying on the strict interpretation of a law to their advantage, using the golden rule can ensure they are not able to escape punishment

Question 30

Saves time for Parliament
explination and example

Answer 30

As judges will make a decision which then sets a precedent, Parliament do not have to waste time changing the law as future courts will just follow the rule made by the judge
r v allen

Question 31

Golden Rule - Disadvantages

Answer 31

1)limited in its use
2)Judges can change the meaning of a statute
3)It requires there to be an absurd outcome – and not just injustice
4)unpredictable

Question 32

limited to its use explination and case example clue for case: military base

Answer 32

It is only used in rare occasions so it is impossible to predict when it will be used. This causes problems for the public following the law and lawyers advising clients as they do not know when a judge will consider something to be ‘absurd’.
Adler v George 1964
D found inside a restricted military base
Law said it was illegal to be ‘in the vicinity’ of the base (but not inside)
GUILTY as ‘in the vicinity’ interpreted to include inside the base too

Question 33

Judges can change the meaning of a statute
explination and case example

Answer 33

This infringes the rules of the separation of powers by allowing judges to become law makers. This is undemocratic as Parliament should be the ones to change the laws
Re Sigsworth (arguably Parliament needed to change this law)

Question 34

It requires there to be an absurd outcome – and not just injustice explanation and example case

Answer 34

Judges can only move away from the literal rule where there is a result which is ‘absurd’ – but if the result is just unfair and unjust, judges may not be able to make a different decision
LNER v Berriman

Question 35

Unpredictable
explanation and example- not a case but a phrase…flying

Answer 35

There is a lack of guidelines in terms of when judges will use this rule and when something is considered absurd or not. Michael Zander “feeble parachute”-It can be argued that it is not always possible to define what is ‘absurd’. This is a subjective decision.

Question 36

mischief Rule - Advantages

Answer 36

1)Promotes the purpose of the law
2)More likely to produce a ‘just’ result
3)Closes loopholes in the law
4)Allows judges to use external aids

Question 37

Promotes the purpose of the law
explination and example case Smith v Hughes 1960 cle prossy on balcony

Answer 37

It allows judges to look back at the gap in the law which the Act was designed to cover.
Its emphasis is on making sure the gap in the law is filled and prevents people using loopholes to get out of being punished.
Smith v Hughes 1960
Women were prosecuted for soliciting their services from private balconies
The law made it illegal to do this in public
GUILTY as the ‘mischief’ the Act tried to deal with was soliciting, and as they could be seen by the public this was included, even though they were technically in private

Question 38

More likely to produce a ‘just’ result
explanation and case example

Answer 38

the outcome of the case is more likely to provide justice in the circumstances.
It also allows for advances in technology or medical science to be put into the context of the original Act of Parliament.
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

Question 39

Closes loopholes in the law explanation and case … military

Answer 39

If Parliament have made an error when writing the law and this has left a loophole where the problem in society may not be properly dealt with, the mischief rule allows this to be closed
Smith v Hughes

Question 40

Allows judges to use external aids
explanation and example case

Answer 40

Hansard (a written book which includes a transcript of all the debates in Parliament) can be used by judges to help to determine the mischief. Pepper v Hart (case that decided this could be used)

Question 41

Mischief Rule - Disadvantages

Answer 41

1)Risks judicial law making
2)Leads to uncertainty in the law
3)Has retrospective effect
4)Outdated

Question 42

Risks judicial law making explanation and case example..military

Answer 42

If judges are trying to fill the gaps in the law with their own views on how the law should deal with the ‘mischief’ or problem then this is undemocratic. Smith v Hughes

Question 43

Leads to uncertainty in the law
explanation and example case- bike riding drunk

Answer 43

It is impossible to know when judges will use the rule and also what result it might lead to. This makes it difficult for lawyers to advise their clients.
Corkery v Carpenter 1951
Licensing Act forbid someone to be drunk and in charge of a ‘carriage’
D was riding his bike while drunk
GUILTY as the ‘mischief’ was drunk people making the roads unsafe, and this included by a bike

Question 44

Has retrospective effect explanation and case example- prossies

Answer 44

It can have the effect of making something a crime that is punished, when it might not have been technically illegal when the offender did the act
Smith v Hughes (the prostitutes were not technically breaking the law when they acted)

Question 45

outdated explanation and example case- 1584..started it

Answer 45

The rule was made in 1584 and is therefore out of date and does not reflect modern laws – e.g. not every Act starts due to a problem
Heydon’s Case (1584)it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule of statutory interpretation

Question 46

Purposive Approach - Advantages

Answer 46

1)Leads to justice in individual cases
2)Useful for new technological/ scientific developments
3)Parliament’s intentions can be discovered with looking when the law was passed
4)Saves time for Parliament

Question 47

Leads to justice in individual cases
explanation and example case

Answer 47

Looks at each case individually and makes the decision that is most fair when looking at the purpose that Parliament wanted when they passed the law originally.
Ex Parte Smith

Question 48

Useful for new technological/ scientific developments
explination and case example-Quantavalle…embryos

Answer 48

This means that the law can be updated and developed quickly through case law rather than having to wait for Parliament to change the law, as judges can consider what Parliament would have included in the law if the technology had existed when the law was written
hallenge was made to the courts by the Pro Life Alliance when the HFEA carried out research on cloned embryos, which are not fertilised
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 had granted HFEA permission to research into fertilised embryos
RESEARCH ALLOWED TO CONTINUE as the purpose of the law had been to allow scientific research into embryos – it was not important if they were fertilised or not

Question 49

Parliament’s intentions can be discovered with looking when the law was passed
explanation and case example

Answer 49

Judges are able to look at the debates that took place in Parliament when the law was passed (Hansard) and this makes it easier for them to discover what their intentions were
Pepper v Hart

Question 50

Saves time for Parliament
explanation and case example-killing their mom

Answer 50

Rather than Parliament having to go back and change laws which include errors (as they have to with the literal rule), the judge’s decision sets a precedent to be followed in future cases
Ex parte Smith

Question 51

Purposive Approach - Disadvantages

Answer 51

1)Gives too much power to unelected judges
2)It can be difficult to discover the intention of Parliament
3)Leads to uncertainty in the law
4)Judges ignoring wording of Parliament

Question 52

Gives too much power to unelected judges
explanation and case example … embryos

Answer 52

Some judges may use this approach as an excuse to make their own decisions without having to strictly follow the words of Parliament. This is not democratic as judges are not elected, and so only Parliament should have the power to do this
Quantavalle

Question 53

It can be difficult to discover the intention of Parliament
explanation and example case…embyos

Answer 53

Not all Acts of Parliament will clearly state what the purpose of the law is, meaning that judges will have to guess – and they could guess incorrectly. This can make the law inconsistent and is undemocratic
Quantavalle

Question 54

Leads to uncertainty in the law
explanation and example case…killing their mom

Answer 54

As the law gives too much power to judges to interpret a law however they want, it can mean that the outcome of a case will not be certain which makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients. ex parte Smith

Question 55

Judges ignoring wording of Parliament explanation and example case- killing their mom

Answer 55

Judges may use this rule even when the law is clear in order to make a decision they feel is more fair – this is not their job or decision
Ex Parte Smtih